Volume 60 Number 72
Produced: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:48:37 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A Suggestion for Communal Co-responsibility
[Harlan Braude]
Bnei Aharon: hakohanim or hakohein?
[Haim Snyder]
Gluten Free Matzo (2)
[Martin Stern Michael Poppers]
Possible Shabbat Violation (2)
[Martin Stern Carl Singer]
Quinoa 2012
[Michael Rogovin]
Sfeik sfeika (was Quinoa 2012)
[Alan Rubin]
Tefillin (3)
[Michael Frankel Robert Schoenfeld Ben Katz]
What Are They Reading?
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: A Suggestion for Communal Co-responsibility
In MJ 60#71, Yisrael Medad wrote:
> But the point I am making is that the announcement that the eruv has been
> made, in addition to that which is usually made in newsletters, emails or
> from the pulpit the previous Shabbat that it should be done, should also
> be made on the Holiday itself. What I would call communal co-responsibility.
> And by anyone who has made it.
The last yom tov that required an eruv tavshilin, one of the members of the
shul I attend arranged that hard-boiled eggs and matzoh would be available in
the shul erev yom tov, and the rav announced after Mincha that anyone who had
forgotten to make an eruv tavshilin could do so right then! I thought that was a
very thoughtful and considerate action for that shul member to take.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Bnei Aharon: hakohanim or hakohein?
In Volume 60 #71, Martin Stern asked:
> In Vayikra the kohamim are generally referred to as "bnei Aharon hakohanim -
> the sons of Aaron, the priests" (1:5,8,11 etc.). Yet in regard to setting up
> the wood for the pyre (1:7), they are referred to as "bnei Aharon hakohein -
> the sons of Aaron the priest". Is there any significance in this change of
> emphasis?
In tractate Z'vahim on page 18 sheet 1 there is an explanation of the use of
hakohein which is also cited by Rashi on the verse you mentioned and the Vilna
Gaon in his "Kitzur Torat Hakohanim." They say that we learn from this that if
the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) performs a sacrifice wearing the clothing of an
ordinary priest, the sacrifice is invalid. He must wear the eight garments of
his office.
Similarly, in the next verse where "bnei Aharon hakohanim" is used, Rashi cites
the same page to say that if an ordinary priest performs a sacrifice wearing the
eight garments, his sacrifice is also invalid.
The following verse uses the term "hakohein" and the Vilna Gaon cites tractate
Yoma on page 27 sheet 1 to say that this means that a non-kohein can skin and cut
up the sacrifice in addition to being permitted to slaughter the animal. This is
deduced from the lack of any mention of kohanim in 1:6.
--
Regards,
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Gluten Free Matzo
Rick Turkel wrote (MJ 60#71):
> Maybe it's just me being picky, but I find this product somewhat deceptive.
> Yes, it may well be Kosher for Passover, and yes, it may well be gluten free,
> but it's NOT matzah! Matzah by definition must be made from one of the chamesh
> minim (the five grains over which we make hamotzi), and all five of those
> species contain some gluten. It's true that the packaging says "Matzah style
> cracker," but I wonder how many people are going to buy it thinking that it is
> matzah and will inadvertently end up not fulfilling the mitzvat `aseh
> de'orayta (Torah-level commandment --Mod.) of eating matzah on the first (two)
> night(s) of Pesach.
Gluten Free Matzos are generally made from oats, which are one of the five
grains over which we make hamotzi, and contain virtually no gluten. This
makes them suitable for those who are gluten-intolerant who can then use them to
fulfill the mitzvah without any ill effect. The process of making them is
complicated, as the oats need special treatment to remove the bitter taste
that such matzos would otherwise have, and this must be done without making
them chametz, which explains their higher cost.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Gluten Free Matzo
In reply to Rick Turkel (MJ 60#71):
In terms of fulfilling the Seder-night mitzvah, as well as in regard to other
mitzvos which involve grain products, may I point the listmembers to R'D.Cohen's
"Celiac: A Guide to Mitzvah Observance" article, http://tinyurl.com/RDC-celiac
(or
http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/Celiac%20%20A%20Guide%20to%20Halachic%20Obse
rvance%20(JoHaCS%202010).pdf ).
Thanks, and may we all experience a Chag Kasher v'Sameach!
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Possible Shabbat Violation
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 60#71):
> I was directed to a video clip of a sermon delivered by a Reform Rabbi.
> Since it was recorded on the Shabbat (two camera angles, btw!), can it be
> viewed by observant Jews? Why yes. Why no?
This might be a case of a sfeik sfeika. Perhaps he or she (or, probably more
relevant, the person making the recording) was not halachically Jewish, in which
case there is no problem, and even if they were all Jewish, it is a matter of
dispute whether there is any issur (prohibited status) on the resulting film. But
don't rely on my argument, consult your Local Orthodox Rabbi.
In any case, why would a Torah-observant Jew want to hear such a sermon?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Possible Shabbat Violation
Yisrael poses an interesting question in MJ 60#71; I do not have an answer. BUT
I would like to generalize, if I may, to most recorded media.
Consider the following four parameters:
1 - Was the work done on Shabbos?
2 - Was it done by a Jew on Shabbos?
3 - Was it done for me - or on my behalf - or at my request - or directly
for my benefit?
4 - Did I force the work to be done on Shabbos*?
* An example of #4 would be my giving my car to my mechanic late on erev
Shabbos for a repair that will take several hours and asking that it be
ready Motzei Shabbos.
I believe these are the 4 key parameters in responding to this question.
In the above scenario we have:
1 - Was the work done on Shabbos? *YES*
2 - Was it done by a Jew on Shabbos? *YES*
3 - Was it done for me - or on my behalf - or at my request - or directly
for by benefit? *NO*
4 - Did I force the work to be done on Shabbos? *NO*
Generalizing, think of recorded music: a record, CD or DVD.
1 - Was the work done on Shabbos? *Possibly* - somewhere in the
recording, post-recording engineering, pre-recording preparation,
rehearsals, manufacturing, distribution -- some work may have been done on
Shabbos.
2 - Was it done by a Jew (on Shabbos) ? *Possibly* - someone involved in
the above process might be Jewish and may have worked on Shabbos -- by
work, I of course mean work in the halachic sense.
Intersecting 1 & 2 -- Was work done on Shabbos by a Jew? *Possibly*
3 - Was it done for me - or on my behalf - or at my request - or directly
for my benefit? *NO*
4 - Did I force the work to be done on Shabbos? *NO*
*
*
Parameter 4 is, I believe, a clear determinant -- if "YES" -- regardless of the
other parameters.
Also, yes to #4 most likely implies a yes to #3 as well - but this may not
be relevant.
*
*
Focusing on the first two parameters -- it seems that "Possibly" may well
be the situation for nearly all media.
Do we build on two "Possibly" responses to permit consuming (viewing,
listening, etc.) to the media?
What if we know, for a fact, that #2 is yes -- say someone in the orchestra
is Jewish -- but #1 is still a "Possibly"?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Quinoa 2012
In M-J V60#71, Josh Backon wrote:
> There is KLP quinoa in Israel from SUGAT. The package erroneously
> states KITNIYOT but there is a message on the package that
> the product needs to be checked 3 times
I bought this assuming that since it is KFP it was checked by the
supervising agency. What is the purpose of stating something is KFP if it
needs checking by the consumer? Rice with a KFP has presumably been checked
for chametz and found free; should not the Quinoa be the same? Like Bill
Bernstein in the subsequent V60#71 post, I am very suspect of the
sudden discovery that chametz mixed into quinoa is a "real" problem, just
as I am suspect of the issue of contamination of oils, like grapeseed, with
chametz oils being an issue for pesach.
It reminds me of a local bagel store that is certified as follows: Only
uncut bagels are certified kosher. The store is certified Kosher, Dairy.
When I inquired how it was possible to certify dairy bread, the answer was
that the bread was really 100% parve, not even dairy equipment (an issue
for Ashkenazy Jews), and I could for certain eat them with meat if I wanted
to. Why then certify them as dairy? First they said it was due to knives
(but cut bagels are not certified), then they said it was due to potential
food allergies (which has nothing to do with kashrut). No logical or
sensible answer was ever forthcoming. It seems that some Rabbis look for
problems instead of solutions.
Chag Kasher v'Sameach
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Rubin <alan@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 28,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Sfeik sfeika (was Quinoa 2012)
The continuing debate about quinoa suggests to me that we have a new principle.
Safek minhag taus l'chumra (a doubt about an erroneous custom is decided
strictly)!
Alan Rubin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Tefillin
Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 60#71):
> Carl Singer asks (MJ 60#70):
>> When did Rabbainu Tam Tefillin originate?
> Just an historical footnote: The oldest extant pair of tefillin we have is
> from the Qumran community that Yigal Yadin bought just after the Six Day War
> (1967)
Not exactly. Descriptions of finds of t'filin are published by other
archeologists as early as 1955, from Qumran, Wadi Murabbat and Nachal Selim.
What Yadin bought in 1968 was the first t'filin shel rosh that had (most of) the
original poroshiyos undisturbed in their original locations in their capsule.
The Chabad article linked to has Yadin saying that all four poroshiyos were
found in ther t'filin but that is misleading. His published scientific summary
makes it clear one of the poroshiyos was not original.
> see:
> http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/522826/jewish/Tefillin-on-the-
> Train.htm which is an excerpt from his book, Chave'otav Shel Archelog
> Yehudi.
> The parchments in that set of tefillin go according to the order of Rabbenu
> Tam! So while Rashi Tefillin are more in vogue today, it appears the
> historical proof is that of Rabbenu Tam (Rashi's grandson).
This is simply incorrect.
While t'filin shel yod have been found in a number of Judean desert places
besides Qumran, reflecting the order of both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, I have a
copy of Yigal Yadin's scientific summary (published in 1969 jointly by Heikhal
Hassefer and the Israel Exploration Society) and it is clear that the t'filin
shel rosh discussed - the only sample ever found with poroshiyos undisturbed in
their original capsule (well 3 of them undisturbed anyway) - is arranged in an
order that conforms to neither Rashi nor Rabbeinu Tam, although a bit closer to
Rashi, in that only the two middle sections have order switched. There are
other discrepancies as well - notably the inclusion of additional p'suqim along
with the canonically prescribed portions. Guess things were done a mite more
flexibly then and both proto-Rashi and proto-Rabbeinu Tam, or at least systems
similar to those, were in simultaneous use back at the turn of the calendar.
Mechy Frankel
(301) 593-3949
<michaeljfrankel@...>
<mjf34@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Schoenfeld <frank_james@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Tefillin
According to Professor Lawrence Schiffman of NYU (expert on the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Jewish history of the period around the destruction of the
Second Temple era), the Qumran site was a Sadducee retreat and as such
those Tefillin that Yigdal Yadin found would be according to Sadducee
ideas. How Rabbenu Tam came about his set up of Tefillin is unknown. Was
he in touch with the Karaites who seem to be the theological descendents of the
Sadducees?
--
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Tefillin
In mail-jewish Vol.60 #71, Chaim Casper wrote:
> Carl Singer asks (MJ 60#70):
>> When did Rabbainu Tam Tefillin originate?
> Just an historical footnote: The oldest extant pair of tefillin we have
> is from the Qumran community that Yigal Yadin bought just after the Six Day
> War (1967)
> see:
> http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/522826/jewish/Tefillin-on-the-
Train.htm
> which is an excerpt from his book, Chave'otav Shel Archelog Yehudi. The
> parchments in that set of tefillin go according to the order of Rabbenu Tam!
> So while Rashi Tefillin are more in vogue today, it appears the historical
> proof is that of Rabbenu Tam (Rashi's grandson). As Rav Moshe z"l notes on
> another issue, we don't necessarily go by what is historically correct;
> rather, we go by what our mesorah (tradition) tells us is the correct path
> to follow.
>From a historical point of view, the whole "Rabeinu Tam vs Rashi tefillin"
discussion makes no sense. If people had been wearing tefillin for a thousand
years, how come this all of a sudden became a disagreement in the 11th-12th
centuries? I have a theory that I have never seen published that makes sense to
me, that others may not like (for a change), but here goes - I think before it
became spelled out people were not that particular about how the 4 parshiyot had
to be written. Some wrote them in the order they appear in the Torah, others
differently. When authorities started to record how they were written in their
particular sets of tefillin, several different customs came to light and people
then started to become more particular about which was correct. Why shouldn't
there be different ways to do the same thing, even for Torah laws? There are
many ways to tie tzitzit!
An early hag kasher vesameach to all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 29,2012 at 12:01 PM
Subject: What Are They Reading?
Or more properly, what are they printing?
On a recent visit to a book store here in Jerusalem, I spotted the
following titles of recent books that have just been published:
a) Laws of Sneezing
b) Laws of the Breastfeeding Woman
c) Laws on Commercial/Employment Matters Between The Jew and the Non-Jew
d) Laws on Taking Care While Travelling/Crossing The Street
Title pics here: http://wp.me/p22Zl4-6C
Is this the state of Halachic research today?
--
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 72
